5 ms·

I live in London in the UK. These things are terribly hazardous. You can't ride them in the road as they are too wide and most of the drivers are assholes and

I live in London in the UK. These things are terribly hazardous. You can't ride them in the road as they are too wide and most of the drivers are assholes and will try and kill you at the first available opportunity. That leads to the owners riding them on the pavement which is even more hazardous as they have zero stopping power, huge momentum and take up the entire width meaning people have to dive into the road when one appears (see asshole drivers above). I really want these sort of things to succeed. In fact I think the best form of transport is a recumbent tricycle. But I don't think they work in most poorly designed cities or even most poorly designed towns. I wouldn't even ride one in Cambridge to be honest.

davidw 13y ago
It sounds like what are hazardous are the drivers, not the "bi"cycle.
- awjr 13y ago
  No the issue in the UK is the concept of vehicular cycling (you ride your bike and pretend you are a car and share the road space). It has been the main way the UK has pushed cycling for decades. Only recently (last couple of years) has there been a massive push to stop pretending this is actually working. This is mainly driven through by cyclists becoming more politically motivated to affect a change. What it comes down to is segregation of transport types; cars from bicycles; pedestrians from bicycles.
  - harrytuttle 13y ago
    Exactly this.
  - stephengillie 13y ago
    In Seattle, bicyclists become militant and have destroyed cars in protest of drivers not sharing the road.
  - snogglethorpe 13y ago
    The "vehicular cycling" cult is stupid (and harmful), mainly because it's so damn dogmatic, but for heavy-duty bike-cargo use—a bike can easily pull a trailer the size of a small truck, and extremely wide—you're probably going to always need to use the road some of the time because dedicated cycle routes tend to be too small... Moreover, there will always be places where there isn't sufficient dedicated bicycle infrastructure, no matter how desirable it is. So for better or for worse, merely segregating cyclists isn't enough. Something needs to be done about the asshole drivers. [Of course, merely as a matter of general principle, something should be done about the asshole drivers, because they are simply bad for society, but that's a long and hard task, which entails both legal and cultural changes.]
    - nealabq 13y ago
      The rude-car-driver problem may disappear as self-driving cars go from luxury to common to mandatory. Wonder how long we'll have to wait?
    - alanctgardner2 13y ago
      I commented above, but I think I'm in the aforementioned cult. At least where I live, the legal changes are in place: cyclists are allowed to use any public roadway with a limit less than 100km/h, take the lane any time they need to, and aren't required to use bicycle lanes or paths just because they're there. The problems are entirely cultural: people aren't raised to treat bikes as vehicle. As a kid they're encouraged to use the sidewalks for safety, but most people never graduate to riding safely and properly on the roads. Every bicycle path is also a walking path, because biking isn't a slower car, it's a faster pair of feet (so to speak). Because bicycles aren't "vehicles", and most people never ride on the road, they don't have much empathy for people who do. Incidentally, we have a few fatalities a year from intoxicated biking, which I think stems from the idea that it's somehow much safer than driving while drunk. I'd love to live in a place where there were either clear delineations (cars/bikes/pedestrians). Failing that, bikes really belong on infrastructure for cars, not infrastructure for pedestrians.
      - awjr 13y ago
bosie 13y ago
sorry to hear london doesn't accept bicyclists and doesn't provide infrastructure for them. can't imagine riding them on pavement. that being said, zero stopping power? i used the trike to transport various heavy things (not children though) and the two front disc brakes had no problem stopping me immediately. maybe you just had bad luck with yours?
- harrytuttle 13y ago
  Some infrastructure is available but you are a second class citizen as a cyclist. The cycle routes are always heavily parked on or really rough. I can just about stand them with a touring bike. I do not own one but have ridden one. Compared to my Dawes Galaxy it really just doesn't stop at all. I've been run over by one as a pedestrian as well. It came skidding to a halt. That did have children in it though.
  - bosie 13y ago
    I couldn't feel much difference to my touring bike, which has SLX disc brakes. though i have seen plenty of non-disc brake equipped cargo bikes in copenhagen and yes, i find that quite dangerous too.
- jzwinck 13y ago
  On the contrary, London has the Barclays aka Boris Bike short-term hire scheme. It has the (also Barclays-sponsored) Cycle Superhighways. It has thousands of cycle commuters every day, even in the rain. Many offices have showers; some have secure cycle parking (even for those that don't, cycle theft is a bit less rampant than in NYC). The whole of the UK has Sustrans, which produces routes and maps across the island, not always perfect but pretty impressive and useful if you aren't in a hurry. The idea that London doesn't accept bicyclists or provide infrastructure for them is quite untrue. That said, plenty of people in London from Europe view London as insufficiently bike-friendly. Which it is, too.
  - bosie 13y ago
    right, i should have been more precise. london has infrastructure for bicycles but just not the important ones. read what harry rights and then check against the infrastructure you listed. apparently actual needs aren't fulfilled in london. the two most important things are: - segregated bicycle paths - forgiving attitude towards bicycles by drivers those should have top priority, the rest is icing on the cake. photo of a bicycle path in copenhagen: https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4119/4735055023_b1b8425c8b_b.jpg https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4119/4735055023_b1b8425c8b_b.... but maybe i am biased. i would give up all the things you mentioned for wide, segregated bicycle paths as i just love a safe and stable ride on my bike.
samwillis 13y ago
I work in cambridge and used to live in the city. Having both dirven and cycled around the town a lot I have come to the conclusion that they are both as bad as each other. There is no respect on either side for the other. I agree that these things are incredibly dangerous, I often see mothers with kids in the front (with no helmet) turning out of blind corners. With mother at the back she can't see what round the corner until the kids are well into the road!
ciclista 13y ago
>they have zero stopping power Good call. Load some groceries or kids on this things, and with the weak (looks like backpedal) brake design I'm seeing here you're asking for a world of trouble once you gain enough momentum from going downhill. Let's keep in mind these were designed in the Netherlands, where everything is as flat as a pancake. Not always applicable to your average US city. >In fact I think the best form of transport is a recumbent tricycle Until you try to go uphill unfortunately.
- apendleton 13y ago
  Looks like disk brakes in front to me, which typically have excellent stopping power (though I could imagine, as you say, that would get trickier with an extra 100lbs of cargo in front).
Zigurd 13y ago
The one in the picture appears to have disc brakes on the front wheels. That setup should be able to stop very effectively, and with the rider sitting so far back, no chance of going over the handlebars.
- ferongr 13y ago
  Cable-operated disc brakes on bikes have almost the same stopping power as V-Brakes. Their advantages are different, including their more protected location (less mud/water, ideal for off-road applications) and the different mounting considerations (you can't put front V-Brakes on that trike). A hydraulic brake system would be ideal for this application but they are quite expensive.
buro9 13y ago
Have you ridden one? I found them to be perfectly safe to ride, relatively easy to manoeuvre, with drivers giving ample space (presumably because they think they contain young children, whereas I was just transporting 30KG of alcohol). They also have disc brakes, and do stop pretty damn well in all conditions. I guess the only thing I'd modify about a Christiana bike is that I'd want to figure out how to take out the worst of the bumps from potholes. But adding suspension that works on a trike isn't a cheap thing and would not use commodity bike parts... so I can see why they haven't. But yeah... ride one, they're far more fun they you realise and you're given far more space from drivers than you'd expect. I got no grief when I rode one of these, and would not call them a hazard. Maybe it's just the part of London you are in?
- sopooneo 13y ago
  Does anyone on here have engineering knowledge related to bicycle disc brakes? It seems like they would have a harder time stopping the bike as the friction surface is closer to the hub and thus has less mechanical advantage. So what's the appeal? Because clearly a lot of bikes have them now.
  - harrytuttle 13y ago
    The main thing with discs is that they are less susceptible to crap getting in as the contact surface is away from the road. The big disadvantages to me is that they get hot which causes the pads to degrade quickly, they weigh more, they're a crap load more expensive and if anything goes snap, hacking it on the road is hard. From a non-technical point of view, I think discs lock up easier and are the force applied versus the braking force isn't as linear meaning less control.
  - buro9 13y ago
    It is true that the closer to the centre the greater the force required, but the efficiency of the disc brake is such stopping is not a problem. If you have a heavily loaded bicycle (or tricycle), such as a touring bike with lots of heavy bags or a cargo bike, then you can opt for disc brakes which have additional pistons forming the caliper. Standard disc brakes have only one piston per brake, but brakes such as the Hope M4 http://www.hopetech.com/page.aspx?itemID=SPG336 http://www.hopetech.com/page.aspx?itemID=SPG336 have 2 pistons per brake. Which in turn greatly increases the amount of power available to stop the wheel as the pad size is also increased. Other factors are, as you imply, the rotor size. Small rotors have less stopping power as the same power is transferred to the disc but yet the decreased size requires an increase in power to be equally effective. Small discs are in the order of 160mm in diameter, and the largest are 203mm in diameter. For the greatest stopping power one would go for 203mm diameter rotors and use the "4-pot" (4 pistons in total, 2 in the front brake, 2 in the rear brake) brake calipers. Other factors in disc brakes are that the discs can get very hot. Effects of this is that they can deform the shape of the disc. So also on the market are floating discs, where the braking area is not physically attached to the internal fixing area, hence the term floating... so only the outer area deforms. And you can also get vented rotors, which are made of two braking areas separated by air to increase the surface area by which the rotors can cool. They tend to also be floating. So disc types: 1) Standard single piece of metal, can deform with extreme heat 2) Floating disc, less deformation with heat: http://www.hopetech.com/page.aspx?itemID=SPG312 http://www.hopetech.com/page.aspx?itemID=SPG312 3) Vented and floating discs, less deformation and reduced cooling time: http://www.hopetech.com/page.aspx?itemID=SPG313 http://www.hopetech.com/page.aspx?itemID=SPG313 The last factor in disc brakes is the method by which one would brake. Hydraulic gives by far the greater performance over cabled, but there is an outside chance that if you haven't managed the temperature of the disc that the hydraulics can overheat and freeze. It's something you manage and I've not heard it happen in years, even as a myth. Also, cable is easier to maintain. The result of that though, is that touring bikes tend to go for cabled brakes and of the cabled brakes the Avid BB7 stands out. Everyone else just goes with the hydraulics because it's unlikely they're going to be doing a 25km descent with luggage that could cause such extreme overheating. What else whilst I dump knowledge... Why not put the discs on the rims? You're correct that it would be better performance but wheels themselves deform on impact (potholes) and the disc would fight against that and cause problems. Also... rim brakes are actually good enough already, much cheaper and require less of a high tolerance in engineering. That said, the Buell motorcycle company did this and it works well if you can afford it: http://www.totalmotorcycle.com/photos/2006models/2006models-Buell-LightningXB12S.htm http://www.totalmotorcycle.com/photos/2006models/2006models-... although you now cannot easily get commodity replacement parts. There is also the issue of weight, and that a large ring of metal isn't just additional weight, but rotational weight which requires greater energy to get moving. Why do Tour de France style road bikes not have disc brakes if they are so good? Basically the UCI made them illegal, and manufacturers of ultra-light bikes prefer rim brakes as disc brakes require them to strengthen the fork and crown to deal with the extra force involved, and both the calipers and fork adjustments would add weight. That said, you will find discs on a lot of consumer road bikes now thanks to cyclocross pushing the technology. In summary: disc brakes are awesome and will always stop you, even when it's wet. But only consumer bikes have them, and to make them simple and cheap larger rotors are used with plain discs. Performance discs are vented and floating rotors for long and hard braking periods, and touring people tend to use cables over hydraulic. And one final thing... mix and match. You'll see professional off-road riders putting large 2-pot calipers up-front on large floating rotors, but then only put a single pot on the rear with a small rotor. The vast majority of braking power goes through the front wheel, and people still obsess over weight to the point of wanting to save a few grams where they can.
kalms 13y ago
There are bike paths everywhere here in Copenhagen, so they're quite safe. Plus they are fairly common, so most cars and fellow cyclists know what to expect. Quite handy when picking up the kids, fetching groceries or whatever.
alanctgardner2 13y ago
I've got to chime in and say that the solution to "most of the drivers are assholes and will try to kill you" is to be even more of a pain. I ride in pretty heavy traffic, and if it's not safe to share the lane, I get in the way. It takes a really stupid motorist to drive into oncoming traffic trying to get around. I think most cyclists are afraid of taking up too much space, because they think cars will act aggressively: the fact is, if you're right in the middle of a lane they don't have much choice (unless they literally are murderous). Compromising and lane sharing is much more dangerous, because cars aren't aware of you and cut you off, try to overtake when the road isn't wide enough, etc. The epitome of this is our new 'divided bike lanes', where they stick a curb between you and the car. This has all sorts of features: - cars completely ignore you and cut you off by turning right without looking. I've already been broad-sided once this year. - you can't safely overtake other cyclists without cutting out into the roadway (where nobody is watching for you) - pedestrians treat it as extra pavement and stand right in the bleeding way As for riding on the pavement, IMO it's never OK on any bike. At least in Ontario (Canada), if a vehicle has brakes it belongs on the street, if it doesn't it goes on the pavement. They could technically ticket people for riding on the sidewalk, but the whole culture that treats riding on the road as needlessly dangerous lets them get away with it.

davidw 13y ago

It sounds like what are hazardous are the drivers, not the "bi"cycle.

awjr 13y ago
No the issue in the UK is the concept of vehicular cycling (you ride your bike and pretend you are a car and share the road space). It has been the main way the UK has pushed cycling for decades. Only recently (last couple of years) has there been a massive push to stop pretending this is actually working. This is mainly driven through by cyclists becoming more politically motivated to affect a change. What it comes down to is segregation of transport types; cars from bicycles; pedestrians from bicycles.
- harrytuttle 13y ago
  Exactly this.
- stephengillie 13y ago
  In Seattle, bicyclists become militant and have destroyed cars in protest of drivers not sharing the road.
- snogglethorpe 13y ago
  The "vehicular cycling" cult is stupid (and harmful), mainly because it's so damn dogmatic, but for heavy-duty bike-cargo use—a bike can easily pull a trailer the size of a small truck, and extremely wide—you're probably going to always need to use the road some of the time because dedicated cycle routes tend to be too small... Moreover, there will always be places where there isn't sufficient dedicated bicycle infrastructure, no matter how desirable it is. So for better or for worse, merely segregating cyclists isn't enough. Something needs to be done about the asshole drivers. [Of course, merely as a matter of general principle, something should be done about the asshole drivers, because they are simply bad for society, but that's a long and hard task, which entails both legal and cultural changes.]
  - nealabq 13y ago
    The rude-car-driver problem may disappear as self-driving cars go from luxury to common to mandatory. Wonder how long we'll have to wait?
  - alanctgardner2 13y ago
    I commented above, but I think I'm in the aforementioned cult. At least where I live, the legal changes are in place: cyclists are allowed to use any public roadway with a limit less than 100km/h, take the lane any time they need to, and aren't required to use bicycle lanes or paths just because they're there. The problems are entirely cultural: people aren't raised to treat bikes as vehicle. As a kid they're encouraged to use the sidewalks for safety, but most people never graduate to riding safely and properly on the roads. Every bicycle path is also a walking path, because biking isn't a slower car, it's a faster pair of feet (so to speak). Because bicycles aren't "vehicles", and most people never ride on the road, they don't have much empathy for people who do. Incidentally, we have a few fatalities a year from intoxicated biking, which I think stems from the idea that it's somehow much safer than driving while drunk. I'd love to live in a place where there were either clear delineations (cars/bikes/pedestrians). Failing that, bikes really belong on infrastructure for cars, not infrastructure for pedestrians.
    - awjr 13y ago

bosie 13y ago

sorry to hear london doesn't accept bicyclists and doesn't provide infrastructure for them. can't imagine riding them on pavement. that being said, zero stopping power? i used the trike to transport various heavy things (not children though) and the two front disc brakes had no problem stopping me immediately. maybe you just had bad luck with yours?

harrytuttle 13y ago
Some infrastructure is available but you are a second class citizen as a cyclist. The cycle routes are always heavily parked on or really rough. I can just about stand them with a touring bike. I do not own one but have ridden one. Compared to my Dawes Galaxy it really just doesn't stop at all. I've been run over by one as a pedestrian as well. It came skidding to a halt. That did have children in it though.
- bosie 13y ago
  I couldn't feel much difference to my touring bike, which has SLX disc brakes. though i have seen plenty of non-disc brake equipped cargo bikes in copenhagen and yes, i find that quite dangerous too.
jzwinck 13y ago
On the contrary, London has the Barclays aka Boris Bike short-term hire scheme. It has the (also Barclays-sponsored) Cycle Superhighways. It has thousands of cycle commuters every day, even in the rain. Many offices have showers; some have secure cycle parking (even for those that don't, cycle theft is a bit less rampant than in NYC). The whole of the UK has Sustrans, which produces routes and maps across the island, not always perfect but pretty impressive and useful if you aren't in a hurry. The idea that London doesn't accept bicyclists or provide infrastructure for them is quite untrue. That said, plenty of people in London from Europe view London as insufficiently bike-friendly. Which it is, too.
- bosie 13y ago
  right, i should have been more precise. london has infrastructure for bicycles but just not the important ones. read what harry rights and then check against the infrastructure you listed. apparently actual needs aren't fulfilled in london. the two most important things are: - segregated bicycle paths - forgiving attitude towards bicycles by drivers those should have top priority, the rest is icing on the cake. photo of a bicycle path in copenhagen: https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4119/4735055023_b1b8425c8b_b.jpg https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4119/4735055023_b1b8425c8b_b.... but maybe i am biased. i would give up all the things you mentioned for wide, segregated bicycle paths as i just love a safe and stable ride on my bike.

samwillis 13y ago

I work in cambridge and used to live in the city. Having both dirven and cycled around the town a lot I have come to the conclusion that they are both as bad as each other. There is no respect on either side for the other. I agree that these things are incredibly dangerous, I often see mothers with kids in the front (with no helmet) turning out of blind corners. With mother at the back she can't see what round the corner until the kids are well into the road!

ciclista 13y ago

>they have zero stopping power Good call. Load some groceries or kids on this things, and with the weak (looks like backpedal) brake design I'm seeing here you're asking for a world of trouble once you gain enough momentum from going downhill. Let's keep in mind these were designed in the Netherlands, where everything is as flat as a pancake. Not always applicable to your average US city. >In fact I think the best form of transport is a recumbent tricycle Until you try to go uphill unfortunately.

apendleton 13y ago
Looks like disk brakes in front to me, which typically have excellent stopping power (though I could imagine, as you say, that would get trickier with an extra 100lbs of cargo in front).

Zigurd 13y ago

The one in the picture appears to have disc brakes on the front wheels. That setup should be able to stop very effectively, and with the rider sitting so far back, no chance of going over the handlebars.

ferongr 13y ago
Cable-operated disc brakes on bikes have almost the same stopping power as V-Brakes. Their advantages are different, including their more protected location (less mud/water, ideal for off-road applications) and the different mounting considerations (you can't put front V-Brakes on that trike). A hydraulic brake system would be ideal for this application but they are quite expensive.

buro9 13y ago

Have you ridden one? I found them to be perfectly safe to ride, relatively easy to manoeuvre, with drivers giving ample space (presumably because they think they contain young children, whereas I was just transporting 30KG of alcohol). They also have disc brakes, and do stop pretty damn well in all conditions. I guess the only thing I'd modify about a Christiana bike is that I'd want to figure out how to take out the worst of the bumps from potholes. But adding suspension that works on a trike isn't a cheap thing and would not use commodity bike parts... so I can see why they haven't. But yeah... ride one, they're far more fun they you realise and you're given far more space from drivers than you'd expect. I got no grief when I rode one of these, and would not call them a hazard. Maybe it's just the part of London you are in?

sopooneo 13y ago
Does anyone on here have engineering knowledge related to bicycle disc brakes? It seems like they would have a harder time stopping the bike as the friction surface is closer to the hub and thus has less mechanical advantage. So what's the appeal? Because clearly a lot of bikes have them now.
- harrytuttle 13y ago
  The main thing with discs is that they are less susceptible to crap getting in as the contact surface is away from the road. The big disadvantages to me is that they get hot which causes the pads to degrade quickly, they weigh more, they're a crap load more expensive and if anything goes snap, hacking it on the road is hard. From a non-technical point of view, I think discs lock up easier and are the force applied versus the braking force isn't as linear meaning less control.
- buro9 13y ago
  It is true that the closer to the centre the greater the force required, but the efficiency of the disc brake is such stopping is not a problem. If you have a heavily loaded bicycle (or tricycle), such as a touring bike with lots of heavy bags or a cargo bike, then you can opt for disc brakes which have additional pistons forming the caliper. Standard disc brakes have only one piston per brake, but brakes such as the Hope M4 http://www.hopetech.com/page.aspx?itemID=SPG336 http://www.hopetech.com/page.aspx?itemID=SPG336 have 2 pistons per brake. Which in turn greatly increases the amount of power available to stop the wheel as the pad size is also increased. Other factors are, as you imply, the rotor size. Small rotors have less stopping power as the same power is transferred to the disc but yet the decreased size requires an increase in power to be equally effective. Small discs are in the order of 160mm in diameter, and the largest are 203mm in diameter. For the greatest stopping power one would go for 203mm diameter rotors and use the "4-pot" (4 pistons in total, 2 in the front brake, 2 in the rear brake) brake calipers. Other factors in disc brakes are that the discs can get very hot. Effects of this is that they can deform the shape of the disc. So also on the market are floating discs, where the braking area is not physically attached to the internal fixing area, hence the term floating... so only the outer area deforms. And you can also get vented rotors, which are made of two braking areas separated by air to increase the surface area by which the rotors can cool. They tend to also be floating. So disc types: 1) Standard single piece of metal, can deform with extreme heat 2) Floating disc, less deformation with heat: http://www.hopetech.com/page.aspx?itemID=SPG312 http://www.hopetech.com/page.aspx?itemID=SPG312 3) Vented and floating discs, less deformation and reduced cooling time: http://www.hopetech.com/page.aspx?itemID=SPG313 http://www.hopetech.com/page.aspx?itemID=SPG313 The last factor in disc brakes is the method by which one would brake. Hydraulic gives by far the greater performance over cabled, but there is an outside chance that if you haven't managed the temperature of the disc that the hydraulics can overheat and freeze. It's something you manage and I've not heard it happen in years, even as a myth. Also, cable is easier to maintain. The result of that though, is that touring bikes tend to go for cabled brakes and of the cabled brakes the Avid BB7 stands out. Everyone else just goes with the hydraulics because it's unlikely they're going to be doing a 25km descent with luggage that could cause such extreme overheating. What else whilst I dump knowledge... Why not put the discs on the rims? You're correct that it would be better performance but wheels themselves deform on impact (potholes) and the disc would fight against that and cause problems. Also... rim brakes are actually good enough already, much cheaper and require less of a high tolerance in engineering. That said, the Buell motorcycle company did this and it works well if you can afford it: http://www.totalmotorcycle.com/photos/2006models/2006models-Buell-LightningXB12S.htm http://www.totalmotorcycle.com/photos/2006models/2006models-... although you now cannot easily get commodity replacement parts. There is also the issue of weight, and that a large ring of metal isn't just additional weight, but rotational weight which requires greater energy to get moving. Why do Tour de France style road bikes not have disc brakes if they are so good? Basically the UCI made them illegal, and manufacturers of ultra-light bikes prefer rim brakes as disc brakes require them to strengthen the fork and crown to deal with the extra force involved, and both the calipers and fork adjustments would add weight. That said, you will find discs on a lot of consumer road bikes now thanks to cyclocross pushing the technology. In summary: disc brakes are awesome and will always stop you, even when it's wet. But only consumer bikes have them, and to make them simple and cheap larger rotors are used with plain discs. Performance discs are vented and floating rotors for long and hard braking periods, and touring people tend to use cables over hydraulic. And one final thing... mix and match. You'll see professional off-road riders putting large 2-pot calipers up-front on large floating rotors, but then only put a single pot on the rear with a small rotor. The vast majority of braking power goes through the front wheel, and people still obsess over weight to the point of wanting to save a few grams where they can.

kalms 13y ago

There are bike paths everywhere here in Copenhagen, so they're quite safe. Plus they are fairly common, so most cars and fellow cyclists know what to expect. Quite handy when picking up the kids, fetching groceries or whatever.

alanctgardner2 13y ago

I've got to chime in and say that the solution to "most of the drivers are assholes and will try to kill you" is to be even more of a pain. I ride in pretty heavy traffic, and if it's not safe to share the lane, I get in the way. It takes a really stupid motorist to drive into oncoming traffic trying to get around. I think most cyclists are afraid of taking up too much space, because they think cars will act aggressively: the fact is, if you're right in the middle of a lane they don't have much choice (unless they literally are murderous). Compromising and lane sharing is much more dangerous, because cars aren't aware of you and cut you off, try to overtake when the road isn't wide enough, etc. The epitome of this is our new 'divided bike lanes', where they stick a curb between you and the car. This has all sorts of features: - cars completely ignore you and cut you off by turning right without looking. I've already been broad-sided once this year. - you can't safely overtake other cyclists without cutting out into the roadway (where nobody is watching for you) - pedestrians treat it as extra pavement and stand right in the bleeding way As for riding on the pavement, IMO it's never OK on any bike. At least in Ontario (Canada), if a vehicle has brakes it belongs on the street, if it doesn't it goes on the pavement. They could technically ticket people for riding on the sidewalk, but the whole culture that treats riding on the road as needlessly dangerous lets them get away with it.